The Bailout

I have thought a lot about this "economic crisis" and have wavered on whether or not I support, rather think we need, the federal bailout. I will be the first to admit I don't know jack about economics, which limits my ability to objectively understand the subtleties of this situation. With all that said, I am against any sort of bailout from the government (at least so far as it has been presented).

My reasons for my stance are thus:

1. Any entity taken over or controlled by the government is inefficient and burdensome to tax payers.
2. All government programs (as far as I can tell) are government programs for the simple reason that they lose money and private companies wont/ can't run failing programs.
3. Budget 101, if you live over your means, and get over extended, you have to then live below your means in order to pay all outstanding debts (true, sad, but true). Thus our country needs to reset our spending based on GDP or whatever it is that the USofA counts as"income"
4. I have not heard one single person say that this bailout, or whatever comes out of congress, will actually work and that no more $$ will be required. Bear Stern, Fannie and Freddie, AIG!!! At what point do we say enough is enough???
5. If the ultimate goal is to have liquidity, so that the markets don't freeze, isn't there a better way than giving $$ to the large investment banks that got into trouble.

Coyote blog has a good post on his alternative HERE.

Robert P. Murphy also has a good post titled "The Great Bank Robbery of 2008.

In very simple terms, the Paulson Plan is a straight-up transfer of $700
billion — and counting! — from the taxpayers to a few big financial
institutions. (Some smaller banks are complaining that they don't own the exotic
mortgage-backed derivatives, but rather simple mortgages. They do not believe
they will see a dime of the Paulson money.) It's easy to get all twisted around,
but just remind yourself of this: the Paulson Plan has the federal government
borrow $700 billion (through issuing Treasury debt) in order to buy assets from
Wall Street banks. (We are neglecting the time delay in the program; the entire
$700 billion wouldn't be spent all at once.)

some people want to say that if the government pays $700 billion for a
portfolio of assets that is really only worth $400 billion, then the taxpayers
really only lost $300 billion, not the full $700 billion.
Yet this thinking
is naïve. The taxpayers are not going to be treated as equivalent to
shareholders of a firm that just acquired $400 billion in assets. The taxpayers
are not going to get a cut of the monthly mortgage payments (less the servicing
costs on the $700 billion in new debt) tied to the government's massive
portfolio. Instead, the government will simply bump up its annual spending by a
few billion dollars.

And then at some point — during a future Republican administration, no
doubt — there will be a push to "privatize" the secondary mortgage market, and
the government's portfolio at that time will be auctioned off at very generous
prices to politically connected institutions. For example, maybe the $400
billion portfolio is auctioned off for $250 billion. (Perhaps the big banks have
to set up subsidiaries owned by minorities and women who get preferential
treatment in the bidding process. But whatever the ruse, they will find a way to
justify the low prices.) When all is said and done, the government will have
played hot potato with the MBS, and the national debt — borne by taxpayers —
would be $450 (=$700-$250) billion higher.

He concludes with this insight:

Far from providing stability and confidence, the Fed, Treasury, and SEC's recent
moves have ensured that US capital markets will now function with the same
efficiency as public education in this country. The Paulson Plan is one more
step in the socialization of America, but it is also a great bank robbery.

Can you imagine a new government program entitled "No Tax Payer Left Behind"?

Henry David Thoreau: “This government never furthered any enterprise but by the alacrity with which it got out of the way.”

How It All Works (aka The High Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leaverage Fund)

This via Jeffrey Tucker

Eye of the Needle

My belief system is such that I believe that happiness in life (and death for that matter) is mostly dependant on how we treat others, especially those in need. This not only means money matters, but helping people in whatever they need. I call it Charity(as would probably everyone reading this blog).
Right now in this country there seems to be a division of thought.
1- People should pay taxes to go to charitable causes, or
2- People should not pay "charitable" taxes, and hope that they contribute of their own free will.

I firmly believe in #2, although that leaves the charitable support of this nations poor to the charitable demeanor of the general populace. Government officiators hate this system, because it leaves too much to chance, and not enough recognition to themselves for giving to the poor (albeit giving from tax payers).

In an article by Katherine Mangu-Ward from Reason online talks about Joe Bidens vision of the system.

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), for instance, seems concerned about adequate
patriotism on the part of people in households making over $250,000. They need
to pay more taxes, he said this week: "It's
time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to
help get America out of the rut."
Could it be that Biden is a real, live, walking, talking straw man?
Advocates of personal responsibility and private charity love to hold up this
particular character for inspection: the guy who believes that state welfare
programs exempt him from the obligation to personal charity. The guy who
believes that paying mandatory taxes and making private donations are one and
the same. I've always been skeptical that such a character exists. But here we
have him, in the gleaming golden flesh.
Lest there be room for doubt, Biden
stuck by his remarks and tacked on, "Catholic social doctrine as I was
taught it is, you take care of people who need the help the
most."

And people accuse Sarah Palin as a religious zealot.

When Biden released his tax returns last week, many jumped on his none-too-impressive
record of charitable giving. Despite income somewhere in the $210,432 to
$321,379 category during the last 10 years (rich!),
the Bidens have given between $120 to $995 to charity annually, between 0.06
percent and 0.31 percent of their income. The average taxpayer bringing in more
than $200,000 makes over $20,000 of charitable contributions, according to the
IRS.
Last year, the tax returns of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) show charitable
giving of 27.3 percent to 28.6 percent of his income.

I really believe that the success and prosperity of our country depends on the values of it's people, and that charitable giving is paramount. I also think that those with the most (or even just more) should give more, just not more taxes. Everybody needs to contribute, not only for the betterment of society, country, government, but also for themselves.

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required:(Luke
12:48)

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (Mathew 19:24)

Chivalry Masquerading As Feminism

Cathy Young as a contributing editor at Reason Magazine discussed how the Palin V.P. pick is good for women. I thought it pointed out a few good things, about the state of feminism in America. I, for one, am glad to see a non-lesbian, family loving, God fearing woman stand up for equality.

she writes:

[M]ore representation for feminism across the spectrum of political beliefs is a
good thing. Women, like men, should be able to disagree on gun ownership,
environmental policies, taxes, even abortion while agreeing on gender equity.

At the 1990 Senate hearings on the bill, Biden proudly reported that he
and his brothers were forbidden to lay a hand on their sister even in
self-defense, while she enjoyed "absolute impunity"—and added, apparently not as
a joke, that he had "the bruises to prove it." This is not equality; it's
chivalry masquerading as feminism.

Ultimately, women should vote on the
basis of a candidate's ideas and ability, not gender. But in the contest of the
vice presidential candidates, Palin represents by far the better version of
female empowerment. Regardless of how we vote or who wins, that empowering
message is here to stay.

I am not a woman, so to speak on behalf of one would be foolish, but I would like to think that feminism should be all about equality, and freedom to do whatever you want, be that V.P. or motherhood, or both. It is human nature to want more than other people in order to validate your place. But just like in a band, all instruments/sounds need to be at specific volumes to make the music whole. Nobody likes to hear an overwhelmingly loud bass solo.

Does That Come With Fries??

At the website fightglobalwarming.org You can among other things, buy carbon credits to off-set your personal carbon foot print.

How does it work?
Even if you have already reduced your driving and
electricity use, there's more you can do. You can neutralize the rest of your
pollution—through offsets. When you buy offsets, you essentially pay someone to
reduce or remove global warming pollution in your name.
For example, when you
buy 10 tons of carbon offsets, the seller guarantees that 10 fewer tons of
global warming pollution go into the atmosphere. While the pollution you
produce yourself is the same, you get the credit for that 10-ton reduction.

In case you were wondering what the going rate is, here is what they have on carbonfund.org

Car (5 tons) $25.00

Person (10 tons) $50.00

Zero Carbon (18 tons) $90.00
Go Zero Carbon for just $7.50 a month, and get five tons free!

Hmmm, $7.50 a month for some peace of mind, and a guilt free conscious. Just where does that money go to? To the Climate Gods?? Al Gore?? (aren't they both the same?)
No, it all goes to COWS.

Biomass Digester ? The Inland Biomass Digester collects cow manure from farms in
the area, and natural microbial action converts the manure into methane. The
methane is then used to power a desalination plant to provide water to
surrounding communities. Not only does this process prevent methane from
entering the atmosphere (methane is 23x more powerful than CO2 as a green house
gas) but remnants from the digester is made into organic fertilizer.

I don't quite see how for $7.50/month I can be carbon free when they are removing methane and not carbon. Do I need to by methane off-sets too??

Posted by Dee Norris (via Watts Up With That blog)
skep·tic
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.

I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.

By LukeFri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.

I was trained as a scientist from childhood. My parents recognized that I had a proclivity for the sciences from early childhood and encouraged me to explore the natural world. From this early start, I eventually went on to study Atmospheric Science back when global cooling was considered the big threat (actually the PDO had entered the warm phase several years earlier, but the scientific consensus had not caught up yet). One thing I learned along the way is that a good scientist is a skeptic. Good scientists examines things, they observe the world, then they try to explain why things behave as they do. Sometimes they get it right, somethings they don’t. Sometimes they get it as close as they can using the best available technologies.

I have been examining the drive to paint skeptics of AGW as non-scientists, as conservatives, as creationists and therefore as ignorant of the real science supporting AGW - ad hominem argument (against the man, rather than against his opinion or idea). Honestly, I have to admit that some skeptics are conservative, some do believe in creation and some lack the skills to fully appreciate the science behind AGW, then again I know agnostic liberals with a couple of college degrees who fully accept the theory of evolution and because they understand the science are skeptics of AGW. On the other hand, I have met a lot of AGW adherents who fully accept evolution, but have never read On The Origin of Species. Many of the outspoken believers in AGW are also dedicated foes of genetically modified organisms such as Golden Rice (which could prevent thousands of deaths due to Vitamin A deficiency in developing countries), yet they are unable to explain the significance of Gregor Mendel and the hybridization of the pea plant,

In his comment, Luke (the name has been changed to protect the innocent) attributes inductive reasoning to skeptics and deductive to scientists. Unfortunately, he has used inductive reasoning to draw general conclusions about skeptics based on his knowledge of a few individuals (or perhaps even none at all).

Skeptics are a necessary part of scientific discovery. We challenge the scientific consensus to create change. We examine the beliefs held by the consensus and express our doubts and questions. Skepticism prevents science from becoming morbid and frozen. Here are just a few of the more recent advances in science which initially challenged the consensus:

• 
  The theory of continental drift was soundly rejected by most geologists until indisputable evidence and an acceptable mechanism was presented after 50 years of rejection.
• 
  The theory of symbiogenesis was initially rejected by biologists but now generally accepted.
• 
  the theory of punctuated equilibria is still debated but becoming more accepted in evolutionary theory.
• 
  The theory of prions - the proteinaceous particles causing transmissible spongiform encephalopathy diseases such as Mad Cow Disease - was rejected because pathogenicity was believed to depend on nucleic acids now widely accepted due to accumulating evidence.
• 
  The theory of Helicobacter pylori as the cause of stomach ulcers and was widely rejected by the medical community believing that no bacterium could survive for long in the acidic environment of the stomach.

As of today, the Global Warming Petition Project has collected over 31,000 signatures on paper from individuals with science-related college or advanced degrees who are skeptical of AGW. Someone needs to tell the AGW world that’s thirty-one thousand science-trained individuals who thought things through and became skeptics.

It was Cassandra who foretold the fall of mighty Troy using a gift of prophecy bestowed upon her by Apollo, Greek god of the Sun. So it would seem fitting that I assume her demeanor for just one brief moment -

The theory of anthropogenic carbon dioxide as the cause of the latter 20th century warm period was widely accepted by the scientific consensus until it was falsified by protracted global cooling due to reductions in total solar irradiance and the solar magnetic field.

I am a skeptic and I am damn proud of it.

2008 Elections

Here are some links to the elections for this year. (in Utah).

First: a list of all canidates (excel spreed sheet)

Site of the Lieutenant Governor, which has all sorts of voter information, including how to find your polling station.

I always wondered what the Lt Govenor did.

More from the Lt Govenor web pages: here

In 2004 about 68% of the population voted. That is higher that in many past elections. I imagine that percentage goes down when it is not a presidential election. For a detailed account of the statistics from the 2004 election click here

And finally a quote:

No historian of the future will ever be able to prove that the ideas of
individual liberty practiced in the United States of America were a failure. He
may be able to prove that we were not yet worthy of them. The choice is ours.
(Chicago: Charles Haelberg and Company.

The Republic of Yellowstone

If you have ever visited a national park (Yellowstone for example), you have undoubtedly seen signs or have been told to Not Feed The Bears.

Have you ever wondered why? It's probably pretty obvious.

From bebearawaresw.org spokesman, General Norman Schworzkopf lists some of the reasons:

1. Bears should never obtain human food, pet/livestock feeds, or garbage. Bears that receive these "food rewards" may become aggressive towards humans or cause property damage. To protect people and their property, these bears may have to be destroyed.
2. Wild bears have a natural fear of humans and will attempt to avoid people and developed areas fed bears do not!
3. Wild bears rely on natural foods such as berries and fish. Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage!
4. Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same.
5. Wild bears fed along roads tend to stay near the road - increasing vehicle-animal accidents.

When camping or visiting bear country, there are some precautions so as to not have a run in with a bear
such as:
store food away from your sleeping area
keep food in "bear proof" containers
don't sleep in clothes that have food smell on them.

All this so that we can be spared injury from a bear and the bears can be spared injury from us. So how does this relate to anything that I normally post?

Well I came up with the idea for this post from my brother in law, Mark.

You see just as irresponsible it is to give hand outs to the bears (even though it may seem they are starving and emaciated), it is irresponsible for our government to give handouts to it's people.

In reference to the above bulleted quote

Fed bears will abandon vital food sources for human foods and garbage! "Fed" humans will abandon work and progress for hand outs and freebies.

Wild bears quickly become conditioned to handouts and will teach their cubs to do the same. People will come conditioned to not working and government subsidies they will propagate laziness through their posterity. (Which seems to be the most active reproducers).

Now I'm not saying that we should deprive our nations poorest and underfed, but that there are inherent problems with government providing for them.

Statistics from the US food and nutrition web site. (Food Stamps)
In 2000, it served 17.2 million people a month and cost $17.1 billion.
In 1995, it served 26.6 million people a month, and cost $24.6 billion.
In 1990, it served 20.1 million people and cost $15.5 billion.
In 1985, it served 19.9 million people and cost $11.7 billion.
In 1980, it served 21.1 million people and cost $9.2 billion.
In 1975, it served 17.1 million people and cost $4.6 billion.
In 1970, it served 4.3 million people and cost $577 million.
The program's all-time high participation was 27.97 million people in March of 1994.

Although to the government that is not that much money, what it is doing to the population is what is truly dragging down our country.

Attack of the Clones???

I always loved the A-Team growing up, but I could never understand how they could fire a ba-zillon rounds from a fully automatic, but nobody gets hit( never mind killed). The solution: as learned from Star Wars I The Phantom Menace, create an army of robots. It's not violent to kill off a thousand robots is it? Even StormTroopers wore robotic like masks that de-humanized them. But at least those roles were filled with actual acting extras.
Here is a good video of the "Machines"



(Insert robotic voice here) "Yes We Can"

California Wealth Tax Proposal

I got this from Coyote blog. It was too good not to share here.

Sometimes a proposed law is so wrong and so destructive, but so typical of a certain philosophical bent, that I almost wish it would pass, if for no reason than to have an Atlas Shrugged-type object example of disastrous results. Such is the case for a California ballot initiative that has qualified for the signature-gathering stage. The initiative, in part: (full text linked here)
Imposes one-time tax of at least 55% on property exceeding $20 million of a California resident or held in California by nonresident. [note that this is an asset tax, not an income tax]
Imposes one-time tax (between 36.5% - 54.3%) on income exceeding $10 million when resident dies or leaves California.
Imposes additional 17.5% tax on total incomes of taxpayers with income exceeding $150,000 if single, $250,000 if married; 35% if incomes exceed $350,000 if single, $500,000 if married.
The proceeds of this money will be used to:
To purchase 30% to 51% of the outstanding shares of stock in ExxonMobil, Chevron, General Motors, Ford, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Citigroup, in order to ensure California has an uninterrupted source of energy and financial capital.
To drain and restore the Hetch Hetchy Valley to it’s condition at the beginning of the 20th century.
Use any Surplus funds to combat Global Warming, make infrastructure repairs and improvements, and to research alternative energy sources.
Beyond the unbelievably Marxist confiscation going on here, it begs the question of just what supply of energy and financial capital that California is not getting today that this will somehow ensure. The implication seems to be that ExxonMobil, GM, and Citigroup are too fair-minded, selling their wares too even-handily, and that California would prefer their attention tilted towards California.
Of course this initiative is profoundly immoral, so I can't do anything but deride it, but it would make for a spectacular object lesson (though one would have thought the Soviet Union's experience to be sufficient to this task, but apparently not). I am sure GM's troubles would be greatly helped by replacing its board of directors with the California State Legislature (the only American organization running a bigger deficit than GM) and replacing Citigroup's credit analysis with California social services bureaucrats. I would kind of like to see this in the same way I would love to see what happens if I threw a crate of fluorescent tubes off a 10th-floor roof -- I would never actually do it, because it would be unsafe and destructive, but I can still dream about how compelling the disaster would be.
Postscript: One could probably label this the Arizona and Nevada economic stimulation act and probably not be far off the mark.

If you follow the links and actually read the proposal it is breath-takenly absurd. ie:


The People of California find and declare all of the following:

a) The concentration of wealth in the hands of the few is inconsistent with the tenets of a democratic society.
b)Staggering sums of wealth have come to be concentrated in the hands of a tiny percentage of the population coinciding with growing poverty for tens of millions of persons, declining living standards and worsening economic security for tens of millions more.
[...]
e)Massive concentrations of financial power have fueled the globalization of the American economy, undermined America's traditional manufacturing, industrial and agricultural strength and substituted a class of money changers and speculators. The concentrated financial power has wholly undermined free democratic institutions, created a new breed of public office holder wholly beholden to it's power and reduced America to a debtor nation and a nation of debtors.

Aren't the tenants of a democratic society the fact that everybody has the freedom to do with their life what ever they want? Aren't there tens of millions of people that have started in poverty and have risen to be very wealthy? Have you ever seen the movie "The Pursuit of Happiness" with Will Smith? I just don't get this mentality. Sure everybody would like to better off, but at the expense of others?
And really do we really want to go back to the day when the US manufactured everything? I guess we are going to have to fire all the robots and machines that have taken that roll, so all these willing and able Americans can step in and do it slow and at a higher expense. I guess some peoples views of a democratic society is to take things away from those that have worked hard and give to those that don't.
Good Luck California